So is the Java JDK. So are hundreds of the most commonly used Java
libraries. So is Subversion. So is Ant. So are lots of bits of
proprietary app servers like Websphere or BEA. So is Emacs. So is Vim.
So is Trac. So is Redmine. So is Microsoft's MVC.NET web framework. So
are the NUnit and xUnit .NET testing frameworks. So is the new MS SDK
for their Outlook file formats. So is Adobes Flex SDK. So are lots of
bits of Apple's Xcode IDE. So are many many .NET development
libraries, tools, frameworks, IDE plugins etc available from codeplex.
The list goes on and on.

You'd be hard pressed to find an internal closed source enterprise
development team anywhere that didn't have at least some open source
stuff somewhere in their development, testing and management
toolchains.

Of course this might not be apparent to someone who's development
experience is limited to MS Office macros.
>
> > The survey surveyed Eclipse Users.
>
> Hence this was a survey of open source developers.

So by your moronic logic, iPhone developers and XCode users are also
open source developers because there is a lot of open source code in
the Apple developer tools? Or developers building webapps on top of
MVC.NET are also open source developers?

And also by your logic, the team that develops (for example) the
National Banks online banking system are open source developers
because they use or have used Eclipse?
> In what sense are Eclipse users not a legitimate part of the open source
> community in your mind?

I never said that. But aren't you the one trumpeting the survey result
that found 2/3rds or Eclipse users don't participate in the Eclipse
community at all?

So haven't you just contradicted yourself and shown that Eclipse users
don't have to be part of the Eclipse open source community anyway?

And being that the Eclipse users outside the community would be far
less likely to even hear about the community survey, it is obvious the
proportion of Eclipse users outside the community would be far higher
than the 2/3rds indicated.

Being an Eclipse user is tangential to being an open source developer
or community member. Eclipse is something you use, open source
development or community participation is something you do. An Eclipse
user could be a closed source software developer, an open source
software developer, or both.

Eclipse is probably the most popular Java IDE, and Javas user base is
mostly internal enterprise development shops. It stands to reason that
most Eclipse users are not open source developers.

You also quoted the survey saying there are millions of users yet
thousands of community members. So there are orders of magnitude more
Eclipse users outside the Eclipse community than inside it.

On 13/06/10 02:19, impossible wrote:
>>
>> And also by your logic, the team that develops (for example) the
>> National Banks online banking system are open source developers
>> because they use or have used Eclipse?
>
> It's up to each developer.
>
That doesn't even come close to answering the question.

It is not up to each developer what tools he uses, unless he works in
isolation. It's up to the organisation to specify the tools that their
developers use and how they use them.

On Jun 13, 2:19 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
> Two thirds of open source developers don't think of themselves as belonging
> to an "open source community". That's exactly my point. Most are just in it
> for themselves.

Your point is based on a fallacy and you're failing to wriggle out of
it.

A developer that uses open source is not necessarily an open source
developer. They are definitely an open source user, but whether or not
they are an open source developer is defined by the software they
develop not the software they use.

If someone uses a text editor to develop software, they are a text
editor user, but they are only a text editor developer if they develop
text editors.

An engineer may drive a car to and from work, but that doesn't
necessarily make them an automotive engineer unless they work on cars.

etc etc

Get it? As much as you'd like to represent this as ideology, it just
is simple comprehension and set theory.

A child could easily understand the difference. After all the
difference between subsets and intersection sets is still fresh in
their mind.

On Jun 13, 12:14 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the "open
> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described "open
> source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so did. Just
> because the Larry D'Loserite Church didn't get to vet their bona fides as
> command-line fetishists and fanatical ideologues doesn't make their opinions
> any less valid.

So you've slipped from calling them open source developers to open
source community members? That sounds suspiciously like calling them
open source users. Is that an admission you were wrong all along?

Your premise was by definition completely contradictory anyway. You
were trumpeting that 2/3rds of open source developers don't contribute
anything back - but how can you be an open source developer if you
don't contribute anything back? Isn't making code contributions the
whole thing that makes someone an open source developer in the first
place?

But if the statistic is instead that 2/3rds of Eclipse users don't
contribute anything back to the community - then that isn't
contradictory. There is nothing in the definition being an Eclipse
user requiring any sort of contribution back to the community.

Again (as much as you'd wish it to be) this has nothing to do with
ideology, just some very basic definitions and simple logic. And the
only invalid opinion so far appears to be yours.

--
Cheers
Anton

The statistic fits if you don't confuse a survey of Eclipse users
with a survey of open source developers.

On Jun 14, 12:57 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
> Just as I thought -- The Larry D'Loserite Church has spoken! Anton the
> Wanton Censor presiding.

Hehe, can you point out a single ideological or religious argument
I've made?

This sounds awfully like you've painted yourself into a corner.
> No one dareth call themselves an open source developer unless they have
> passed the church's test of ideological purity!

Surely to call yourself an open source developer you have to like
actually develop open source software? That's not a test of purity,
it's the definition.

Where is the ideological aspect to that argument? It is the logical
meaning of the term. You're the one ignoring the facts.

The survey asked people who visited the Eclipse homepage some
questions about software development. Some answers:

98% use some version of Eclipse (ie only 2% said they didn't use
Eclipse)
and
64% don't contribute anything to the Eclipse community

vs

16% have at one time developed a plugin
8% have at one time entered a patch into Bugzilla
5% have at one time been an active committer on a project

So being that most of those contributors would do more than one of
those things, we have about maybe around 20% of the survey respondents
who have contributed code in some form. Note that surveys selection
bias would also overstate that number. The large numbers of closed
source corporate developers using Eclipse would be less likely to have
been aware of the survey - although some of them answered based on the
other tools used.

Summary:

98% use Eclipse
approx 20% are identifiably open source developers

Conclusion:

98% is far larger than 20% even with huge margins of error. So I think
a better description of the survey is therefore a survey of Eclipse
users not a survey of open source developers. A logical rational
argument based on the very numbers you supplied.

You on the other hand refuted that objection and despite the numbers
cling to the idea that it was instead a survey of open source
developers and that somehow being an Eclipse user automatically makes
you an open source developer. As if being a user of something
automatically makes you a designer or builder of that something. A
flawed illogical argument.

In your haste to deflect Larry's post noting the dramatic drop in
popularity of Windows amongst Eclipse users, you really did confuse a
survey of Eclipse users with a survey of open source developers.

But don't worry, the same selection bias that overstates the number of
open source developers amongst Eclipse users (thus weakening your
argument even further) would also likely understate the proportion of
Eclipse users developing on Windows. So it's OK after all, it was a
false alarm and you don't have to defend your stock portfolio so
irrationally in this case.

In message
<>, AD.
wrote:
> ... the same selection bias that overstates the number of
> open source developers amongst Eclipse users ... would also likely
> understate the proportion of Eclipse users developing on Windows.

But why would that selection bias vary over time? The survey shows a
continuing drop in those using Windows compared to previous years.

On Jun 14, 12:14 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <>, AD.
> wrote:
>
> > ... the same selection bias that overstates the number of
> > open source developers amongst Eclipse users ... would also likely
> > understate the proportion of Eclipse users developing on Windows.
>
> But why would that selection bias vary over time? The survey shows a
> continuing drop in those using Windows compared to previous years.

I wasn't assuming the selection bias would change - it could very well
stay the same. I don't doubt the Windows percentage is dropping. I
just suspect it is probably a bit higher than the survey suggests.

One aspect that could alter the selection bias though is Eclipses
improving support for other languages. For example it is only in the
last year or so that the pydev extension became fully open source.
Based on all the developers I know, I reckon the percentage of Windows
users amongst languages like Python and PHP is a bit lower than it is
amongst Java developers. Especially as Java devs are more biased
towards corporate internal enterprise stuff than Python and PHP.

These minor technicalities aside, it was a significant (and
interesting) drop in the number of Windows users.

On Jun 14, 1:25 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
> It's convenient for Larry D'Loserites to wantonly lie because they think
> they are entitled to wantonly censor out the bits that catch them out. But
> here's the direct quote from you, just one post ago, speaking on behalf of
> the Larry D'Loserite Church, in which you define an open source developer,
> not as someone who writes open source code, but as someone who contributes
> something back to the open source community:

You've failed basic primary school set theory again. I'll explain it
to you further down - if you read the explanation very slowly and draw
some circles on a piece of paper like your school teacher taught you,
you might just grasp it.
>
> Anton the Wanton Censor: "You were trumpeting that 2/3rds of open source
> developers don't contribute anything back - but how can you be an open if
> you don't contribute anything back? Isn't making code contributions the
> whole thing that makes someone an open source developer in the first place?"

1. Draw two circles next to each other that have a gap between them so
they don't overlap. Label one "contributors" and one "non
contributors". The reason they don't overlap is that somebody can't be
in the set of "contributors" as well as the set of "non contributors".

Once you finished that, you can move on to step 2.

2. A code contribution is one type of contribution, so draw a smaller
circle labeled "code contributors" inside the larger circle labeled
"contributors". If you want to get technical, this means that the set
of code contributors is a "subset" of contributors.

Done that yet? How does it look? Have you managed to follow along so
far?

Now this is where it gets tricky: From this diagram we can discover
that someone who hasn't made any contributions at all (ie they sit in
the "non contributors" circle) can't have made any code contributions
because a code contribution is a type of contribution.

Likewise an open source developer is someone who contributes code and
therefore is a "code contributor", and because code contributors are a
subset of contributors, it means open source developer have to also be
contributors at the same time (Wow! Mind blowing! Who knew?).

I know this all seems pretty complex to you, but you should be able
get your head around it eventually.
>
> Hence, your entire complaint with the Eclipse survey revolves around the
> fact that they have not accepted the Larry D'Loserite gospel.

You have missed the point entirely. I have no problem at all with the
survey or the Eclipse Foundation or any Eclipse users. I just pointed
out your lame attempt at misrepresenting it and your irrational
failure to grasp basic logic and subsets.

On 13/06/10 11:50, impossible wrote:
>
> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
> news:4c141681$...
>> On Jun 12, 1:41 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
>> "AD." <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>
>>>> On Jun 12, 1:41 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "AD." <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 12, 5:24 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
>>>>>>> "AD." <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Jun 11, 4:37 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> Screw the "community", say most open source developers, nearly
>>>>>>> >> two-thirds
>>>>>>> >> of
>>>>>>> >> whom contribute absolutely nothing back -- not so much as a bug
>>>>>>> >> report --
>>>>>>> >> according to a recent poll of open source developers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Report.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > You seem to be confusing "Eclipse users" with "open source
>>>>>>> > developers".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Most Eclipse users would work for companies writing closed source
>>>>>>> > internal apps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Just using Eclipse doesn't make you an open source
>>>>>>> > developer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to be confusing "open source developers" with a church.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Open Source Developer" - someone who develops open source software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Eclipse User" - someone who uses Eclipse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that Eclipse is open source software, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> So is the Java JDK. So are hundreds of the most commonly used Java
>>>> libraries. So is Subversion. So is Ant......
>>>> So are lots of bits of proprietary app servers like Websphere or
>>>> BEA. So is Emacs. So is Vim.
>>>> So is Trac. So is Redmine. So is Microsoft's MVC.NET web framework. So
>>>> are the NUnit and xUnit .NET testing frameworks. So is the new MS SDK
>>>> for their Outlook file formats. So is Adobes Flex SDK. So are lots of
>>>> bits of Apple's Xcode IDE. So are many many .NET development
>>>> libraries, tools, frameworks, IDE plugins etc available from codeplex.
>>>> The list goes on and on.
>>>>
>>>> You'd be hard pressed to find an internal closed source enterprise
>>>> development team anywhere that didn't have at least some open source
>>>> stuff somewhere in their development, testing and management
>>>> toolchains.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly my point. The category of "open source developers" is very
>>> broad. Which makes the notion of a close-knit "open source community"
>>> a joke.
>>>
>>>> Of course this might not be apparent to someone who's development
>>>> experience is limited to MS Office macros.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It has always been readily apparent to me that the notion of a
>>> close-knit "open source community" is a joke. Most open source
>>> developers couldn't care less about the Larry D'Loserite sort of
>>> commitment to ideological purity that you, foir example, espouse.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > The survey surveyed Eclipse Users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence this was a survey of open source developers.
>>>>
>>>> So by your moronic logic, iPhone developers and XCode users are also
>>>> open source developers because there is a lot of open source code in
>>>> the Apple developer tools? Or developers building webapps on top of
>>>> MVC.NET are also open source developers?
>>>>
>>>> And also by your logic, the team that develops (for example) the
>>>> National Banks online banking system are open source developers
>>>> because they use or have used Eclipse?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's up to each developer.
>>>
>> That doesn't even come close to answering the question.
>>
>> It is not up to each developer what tools he uses, unless he works in
>> isolation. It's up to the organisation to specify the tools that their
>> developers use and how they use them.
>
> One problem with ripping a sentence out of context is that it makes you
> look like someone who's either too lazy or too stupid to follow a
> conversation.
>
> In your case, I'm going to say it's a little of both.
>
> Eclipse surveyed what it described as "the open source community" and
> discovered that most of the developers who identify themselves as
> belonging to said community are simply in it for themselves. Who their
> employer happens to be is irrelevant because it's up to each developer
> to decide for himself/herself what they identify with and whose surveys
> they choose to participate in.
>
No. In fact it says "the Eclipse Foundation undertook a survey of the
Eclipse community". Not "the open source community". The document itself
notes "the survey is biased to Eclipse users". Nowhere in the document
did it say that the survey respondents consider themselves to be part of
the 'open source community', though the Eclipse Foundation itself does
wrongly try to conflate the Eclipse user base and the open source
community. I'd say that was definitely wrong as many organisations use
Eclipse but don't make their software open source. In fact in one
passage it says that employers are discouraging their workers from
contributing to open source projects. That's probably why 1 in 8 (quite
a small percentage actually) claimed to be 'unaffiliated'.

On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>
> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the "open
> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
> "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so did.
>
Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be part
of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in would he
therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them apparently did
fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is stupid.

Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
community is silly.

On Jun 14, 11:54 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to open
> source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has not been
> sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to contribute back
> to an open source project but that has dropped to 35% in 2010. Conversely,
> in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational policies that allow them to
> use but not contribute back to an open source community, which is an
> increase from the 27% level in 2009. This clearly shows a change in the
> level of willingness to contribute to open source communities.

Hmmm... interesting. So you're saying that there were a large chunk of
survey responders that are just users and not code contributors?

And what's more they work for companies that don't let them make open
source contributions? So they aren't actually open source developers
after all?

That sounds strangely familiar, but I thought you were claiming before
that all the respondents were actual open source developers and not
just users?

You've lost track of all your contradictions.

BTW the 41% not being allowed to contribute anything back kinda puts a
new slant on your assumption of the non contributors attitude doesn't
it?

On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
>
>
> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
> news:4c160dae$...
>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the "open
>>> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
>>> "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so did.
>> >
>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be
>> part of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in
>> would he therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them
>> apparently did fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is
>> stupid.
>>
>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
>> community is silly.
>>
>
> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its own words, is
> what Eclipse concluded from its survey regarding the state of open
> source development:
>
> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Report.pdf
>
> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity model to explain
> how organizations perceive and participate in an open source source
> community. Over time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and champion.
>
> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to
> open source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has
> not been sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to
> contribute back to an open source project but that has dropped to 35% in
> 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational
> policies that allow them to use but not contribute back to an open
> source community, which is an increase from the 27% level in 2009. This
> clearly shows a change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
> source communities.
>
> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is something worth
> investigating"
>
> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just wants to slam the
> door on any news that casts doubt on their religious convictions.
>
You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of respondents
were. Clearly at least 2/3 of the users are corporate users and clearly
they are not the same as the community that develops Eclipse.

Thanks for posting that. Adobe wouldn't let me cut and paste that
portion for some reason.

The only reason you brought it up in the first place was your own
ideological and dogmatic reaction to Larry posting it.

You either stupidly misread (charitable explanation) or deliberately
misrepresented (probable explanation) something and got called on it.
And everything you've said since is just evasion or attempts at
diversion.

You just can't admit you were wrong. That is the only denial going on
in here.

You're torn between two conflicting aspects of your "personality". On
the one hand you know you were obviously wrong and/or deceptive and
you know more answers just further reinforce that, but on the other
hand you can't let someone have the last word because in your warped
mind that is letting them win.

And to resolve this internal conflict before your head explodes, your
tried and true escape technique is to resort to accusations of
censorship or ideology. Most people just give up arguing with you
before you reach that point though.

On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
>
>
> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
> news:4c169bf9$...
>> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
>>> news:4c160dae$...
>>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the
>>>>> "open
>>>>> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
>>>>> "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so
>>>>> did.
>>>> >
>>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be
>>>> part of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in
>>>> would he therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them
>>>> apparently did fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is
>>>> stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
>>>> community is silly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its own words, is
>>> what Eclipse concluded from its survey regarding the state of open
>>> source development:
>>>
>>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Report.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity model to explain
>>> how organizations perceive and participate in an open source source
>>> community. Over time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
>>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and champion.
>>>
>>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to
>>> open source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has
>>> not been sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to
>>> contribute back to an open source project but that has dropped to 35% in
>>> 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational
>>> policies that allow them to use but not contribute back to an open
>>> source community, which is an increase from the 27% level in 2009. This
>>> clearly shows a change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
>>> source communities.
>>>
>>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is something worth
>>> investigating"
>>>
>>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just wants to slam the
>>> door on any news that casts doubt on their religious convictions.
>> >
>> You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
>> prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
>> respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3 of the users are corporate
>> users and clearly they are not the same as the community that develops
>> Eclipse.
>
> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in denial.
>
I'm just quoting that article back to you.

So how do you develop open source software without contributing it?
Surely if you don't contribute what you develop, it isn't actually
open source?

If you don't give it to somebody else, or allow them to get it (ie
contribute it to them) - how can it be open source? Until you actually
contribute the source it is just "software" not "open source
software". Contributing the software with an open source license is
actually what defines it as open source software funnily enough.

It's not dogma, contributing is what defines an open source developer.
The unique alternative definition you seem to (dogmatically) advocate
is a nonsensical contradictory paradox.

As usual you haven't been able to back up a single thing you've
claimed.
> The survey does not support
> that view, which is why there's such a clamor on your part to make that news
> disappear.

The only way that survey would contradict "open source developers
contribute back to the community", is if it was a survey that
exclusively polled open source developers. It wasn't - it was a survey
of Eclipse users and anyone that visited their homepage was invited to
fill it out.

Only 16-20ish% could even be identified as doing anything that could
be counted as "Open Source Development". Which isn't a problem for
anyone else but you - because it was a survey of Eclipse Users and
anyone else that wanted to answer.
>
> Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't; some
> contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy earning a living.

or OSDTDADAOSS for short. It's kinda catchy, I'm sure it will catch on
with all those developers who wanted to have "open source" on their
CVs, but couldn't be bothered with actually doing any actual open
source.

Maybe you somehow think open source is a state of mind rather than
just a category of software license? But isn't that an ideological
view rather than a pragmatic or technical one?

Maybe this state of mind thing could extend to a category of
"Developers that only wish they were Open Source Developers"? Of
course they would be no more open source developers than "Basketball
fans that wish they were in the Harlem Globetrotters" would actually
be members of the Harlem Globetrotters.

On 15/06/10 23:23, impossible wrote:
>
>
> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
> news:4c16f86a$...
>> On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
>>> news:4c169bf9$...
>>>> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4c160dae$...
>>>>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the
>>>>>>> "open
>>>>>>> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
>>>>>>> "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so
>>>>>>> did.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be
>>>>>> part of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in
>>>>>> would he therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them
>>>>>> apparently did fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is
>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
>>>>>> community is silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its own words, is
>>>>> what Eclipse concluded from its survey regarding the state of open
>>>>> source development:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Report.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity model to explain
>>>>> how organizations perceive and participate in an open source source
>>>>> community. Over time, an organization moves from denial of open
>>>>> source,
>>>>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and champion.
>>>>>
>>>>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to
>>>>> open source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has
>>>>> not been sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to
>>>>> contribute back to an open source project but that has dropped to
>>>>> 35% in
>>>>> 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational
>>>>> policies that allow them to use but not contribute back to an open
>>>>> source community, which is an increase from the 27% level in 2009.
>>>>> This
>>>>> clearly shows a change in the level of willingness to contribute to
>>>>> open
>>>>> source communities.
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is something
>>>>> worth
>>>>> investigating"
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just wants to slam
>>>>> the
>>>>> door on any news that casts doubt on their religious convictions.
>>>> >
>>>> No, yoYou are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
>>>> prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
>>>> respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3 of the users are corporate
>>>> users and clearly they are not the same as the community that develops
>>>> Eclipse.
>>>
>>> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in denial.
>> >
>> I'm just quoting that article back to you.
>>
>
> No, you're not. You're reciting the Larry D'Loserite dogma that open
> source developers contribute back to the community. The survey does not
> support that view, which is why there's such a clamor on your part to
> make that news disappear.
>
> Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't; some
> contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy earning a living.
>
> Deal with it.
>
Dimwit. Which bit do you claim that I posted that supposedly supports
the idea that Open Source Developers contribute back to the community?
My claim is that the article reflects nothing about the Open Source
Community, whatever that might be, in spite of Eclipse's rather
hysterical claims.

On 16/06/10 23:28, impossible wrote:
>
>
> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
> news:4c1886fa$...
>> On 15/06/10 23:23, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
>>> news:4c16f86a$...
>>>> On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4c169bf9$...
>>>>>> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4c160dae$...
>>>>>>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not
>>>>>>>>> belong to the "open source community". Eclipse
>>>>>>>>> invited members of its own self-described "open
>>>>>>>>> source community" to participate in a survey, and
>>>>>>>>> 1600 or so did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be
>>>>>>>> said to be part of the "open source community". If a MS
>>>>>>>> developer filled it in would he therefore be an "open
>>>>>>>> source developer"? (Some of them apparently did fill in
>>>>>>>> the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is
>>>>>>>> part of your community is silly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its
>>>>>>> own words, is what Eclipse concluded from its survey
>>>>>>> regarding the state of open source development:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2010_Report.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity
>>>>>>> model to explain how organizations perceive and
>>>>>>> participate in an open source source community. Over
>>>>>>> time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
>>>>>>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and
>>>>>>> champion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations
>>>>>>> contributing more to open source communities. However in
>>>>>>> 2010 it would seem this trend has not been sustained. In
>>>>>>> 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to contribute
>>>>>>> back to an open source project but that has dropped to
>>>>>>> 35% in 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have
>>>>>>> organizational policies that allow them to use but not
>>>>>>> contribute back to an open source community, which is an
>>>>>>> increase from the 27% level in 2009. This clearly shows a
>>>>>>> change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
>>>>>>> source communities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is
>>>>>>> something worth investigating"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just
>>>>>>> wants to slam the door on any news that casts doubt on
>>>>>>> their religious convictions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, yoYou are clearly not an 'open source community member'
>>>>>> if you are prevented from contributing back to the
>>>>>> community as 2/3 of respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3
>>>>>> of the users are corporate users and clearly they are not
>>>>>> the same as the community that develops Eclipse.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in
>>>>> denial.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm just quoting that article back to you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you're not. You're reciting the Larry D'Loserite dogma that
>>> open source developers contribute back to the community. The
>>> survey does not support that view, which is why there's such a
>>> clamor on your part to make that news disappear.
>>>
>>> Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't;
>>> some contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy
>>> earning a living.
>>>
>>> Deal with it.
>>>
>> Dimwit. Which bit do you claim that I posted that supposedly
>> supports the idea that Open Source Developers contribute back to
>> the community?
>
> Let's see...scroll up....20, 21, 22....that's it, 22 lines:
>
> "You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
> prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
> respondents were. "
>
> I wonder where you got that idea....Oh, well, I'm sure you'll post a
> link to the evidence one of these days.
>
It's in the reference you supplied: "In 2009, 48% of the respondents
were allowed to contribute back to an open source project but that has
dropped to 35% in 2010". 35% is approximately 1/3. Therefore 65% (approx
2/3) were not permitted to contribute back, therefore 2/3 were not by
definition members of the Open Source community.
>
>> My claim is that the article reflects nothing about the Open Source
>> Community, whatever that might be, in spite of Eclipse's rather
>> hysterical claims.
>>
>
> Got it. See no evil, hear no evil....
>
As a former Microsoft MVP I resent the fact that the image that you
project of the Microsoft community is so bigotted and ignorant. Thank
the little gods that your type is rare in both the Open Source community
and, to my certain knowledge, in the Microsoft community.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!